open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked Bloggers #5, some words from Tuxford
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3 4

Author Topic

CCP kieron

Posted - 2006.06.05 19:58:00 - [1]
 

If you have been playing EVE for any significant length of time, Tuxford has probably had some effect on it in regards to ship and item balancing. Well, Tux steps up to the plate and smacks one out of the park with information on why he posts (or doesn't post) to forum threads, Tier 3 battleships, tier 2 battlecruisers, missile adjustments, combat and other nifty insights into future EVE development.

Little bit about forums and little bit about whats to come.

Velsharoon
Gallente
Arcane Velshologies
Posted - 2006.06.05 19:59:00 - [2]
 

Edited by: Velsharoon on 05/06/2006 20:03:17

1st! content coming soon!

Erm cant wait to fly my blastermega with 10m optimal range, hope i get a tracking boost NeutralRazz

Nice to see the BC gallente being a drone shi, and anything that prolongs combat is good, had a fight the other day that couldnt have been more than 30 seconds, was 3 vs 7 i think and it ended with 4 dead ships..should at least last a minute...

HippoKing
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2006.06.05 20:00:00 - [3]
 

Edited by: HippoKing on 05/06/2006 20:08:28
not first!

edit: with the bringing combat close issue, there will be a lot of balancing issues. It would have a big effect on how easy it is to get into and away from combat, and would change the sniping system totally (especially low sec empire gates: sentry range changing too?)

Asael
Caldari
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District
Posted - 2006.06.05 20:01:00 - [4]
 

Edited by: Asael on 05/06/2006 20:12:59
Third! *reads*

Hmm, those Assault missiles sound pretty sweet. It may just be the thing to make me love missile's as a weapon. But about the lowering of the optimal ranges of the turrets. It sounds nice to prolong the battle and to 'force' everybody to get a bit closer. But what about the range of the missile's? Since missile's dont have an optimal range, i hope that you guys are not forgetting the missile weapon type with its range. I hate to see everybody jumpng to missile's just because they cant sit at 100+ km with their turrets.

The Enslaver
Viziam
Posted - 2006.06.05 20:06:00 - [5]
 

Fourth?

SengH
Black Omega Security
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2006.06.05 20:07:00 - [6]
 

reducing optimal range? lol... projectiles better get a huge tracking boost.... The other side effect is that it would bring alot more ships into NOS range....

Tuang Pao
Adaptive Technologies
Posted - 2006.06.05 20:08:00 - [7]
 

Reduce combat ranges? Whatever for?

The ranges are already far too short for deep space combat. Modern oceanic naval weapons routinely reach 100km in atmosphere. Don't you think that space based weapons will have appropriately longer ranges?

Then there's the issue of maneuver to engage the enemy. Speed enhancement would be virtually pointless at the 1.0/1.5/2.0 progression Tux describes.

Why would they want to reduce combat ranges? I don't get it.

Kitty O'Shay
Tharsis Security
Posted - 2006.06.05 20:10:00 - [8]
 

I think that raising ship HP would just be another laser nerf, due the built-in armor resistances.

If you're going to raise HP, please look at reducing the base EM resists across the board, and raising sheild EM resists perpotionally.

Please think of the little lasers!

Sprak
Donner Party
B4D W01F
Posted - 2006.06.05 20:14:00 - [9]
 

If optimal ranges are going to be greatly reduced, are sig radiuses going up? Or are tracking speeds being changed? IMO changing the optimal ranges of the guns is a very bad idea. Perhaps you should work on something like.... dock -> redock and aggro timer at stations first.

SengH
Black Omega Security
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2006.06.05 20:15:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Kitty O'Shay
I think that raising ship HP would just be another laser nerf, due the built-in armor resistances.

If you're going to raise HP, please look at reducing the base EM resists across the board, and raising sheild EM resists perpotionally.

Please think of the little lasers!


lasers are fine compariatively... as hp rises DPS matters even more. That means arty users (besides those in the mach) are VERY screwed.

Gunstar Zero
Caldari
Reikoku
IT Alliance
Posted - 2006.06.05 20:21:00 - [11]
 

sounds good.

Anything you could do to make missiles more useful in fleet combat would be cool, though I cant really think of an answer.

Elaron
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2006.06.05 20:22:00 - [12]
 

I'm dubious about reducing overall combat range as well, and there would have to be a long hard look taken at things like the effect of letting shorter ranged ships have a shorter time in the effective range of the long-range guns before their transversal makes tracking impossible. I can see that sensor boosters could get swapped out on a mass basis for webs.

j0sephine
Caldari
Reikoku
Band of Brothers
Posted - 2006.06.05 20:30:00 - [13]
 

"Lately we've been working on Tier 3 battleships. We've had some crazy bonuses on them and some little less crazy."

ahahahaa embrace your target painting bonus, Minmatar xD

* runs like heck. double so in case people recall who's responsible for optimal nerf idea >>;

SengH
Black Omega Security
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2006.06.05 20:32:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: j0sephine
"Lately we've been working on Tier 3 battleships. We've had some crazy bonuses on them and some little less crazy."

ahahahaa embrace your target painting bonus, Minmatar xD

* runs like heck. double so in case people recall who's responsible for optimal nerf idea >>;


The only way I could see a target painting BS work... was if it was a armor tanking missile ship. Then you'd see everyone running like hell as the T2 dmg torps blow the #[email protected]#$k out of everyone since sig rad doesnt matter anymore.

Torm Ilmater
No Quarter.
Vae Victis.
Posted - 2006.06.05 20:34:00 - [15]
 

Most of the blog sounds good except for the part about changing optimal ranges.

Also I don't quite understand this need to prolong fights (too much at least). Sure slightly longer engagements would be fun (possibly) but it's not like that will add some unseen tactical content all on its own. Since we do uniform damage no matter where we are on the field of battle (ie no flanking damage) and the fact that there are no gang formations (or at least no uses for such.

The only real reason to prolong fights is either to allow more time to warp out (yay carebears rejoice) or to allow more time for reinforcements. More time for reinforcements you say? That sounds ok until you think that these prolonged fights will probably result in larger fights (at least when you're engaged in your own territory) and as such will begin to see the ebil lag monster rear its head. How about before trying to prolong fights into massive slugfests we try to work on code optimization (more so than currently done) and server load eh?

Conwright
Imperial Shipment
Posted - 2006.06.05 20:39:00 - [16]
 

I like the optimal nerf idea. Especially with the introduction of T2 long range ammo and being able to hit a 200km+ easily theres way to much sniping going on in my opinion. It would be nice to bring fights closer together so fleets can consist of more than megas, tempets and scorps for a change.

HammaSlamma
Posted - 2006.06.05 20:41:00 - [17]
 

Making a battleship gun have 2x the range on a frigate gun is probably the worst Idea Ive ever heard.... whats a battleship got over a frigate thats moving really fast? Range. Range = negation of tracking speed. It also lets a battleship escape a situation where 20 ceptors, who will definatly smoke him, can then run.

Eli Bredeux
Posted - 2006.06.05 20:42:00 - [18]
 

Edited by: Eli Bredeux on 05/06/2006 20:46:55
Well Tux - FWIW, boosting resistances/adding protection and/or reducing damage is not the way to make EVE combat longer or better IMO. Boosting resists or adding damage capacity can only lead to a situation where smaller ships are marginalized.

EVE combat is basically binary. You either kill the ship or you don't. Which means you either have enough DPS to overwhelm the target or you don't. Increase the damage capacity of all ships and the smaller ships suddenly need more individual DPS (which they don't get or we're right back to the same place balance-wise) or more ships to win. End state is that either people don't bother fighting in small ships (excepting disposable tacklers and/or interdictors), or they form up in huge blobs to ensure kills, or both. Deadly dull, homogeneous combat either way.

What about taking the long way around? Make it so that ships have 4 classes of protection that correspond to the 4 sizes of weapons. Damage penalties for smaller weapons vs. larger targets, large tracking nerf for larger weapons vs. smaller targets. Same-size fights basically unchanged. What this does is make it so that you don't need to consider balance from frig-BS, just BS-BS, frig-frig, etc. It also opens up some roles for Assault class ships that are different from the DPS machines they are now. Give Assault class ships a bonus to fitting larger size weapons and they suddenly become pocket battleships.

Of course, this completely marginalizes smaller ships as (for instance) a frig can't even damage a BS given the size disparity between the two. What to do about this?

Answer: sub-system damage.

Make it so that smaller class weapons have a chance per shot (modified by weapon type, arty > missile > hybrid > laser) of damaging a given module. Enough damage inflicted and said module is destroyed. As you go up the weapon scale, the chance of "critical hits" reduces, but the damage of such a hit increases (one-hit module kills).

Opens the door for wild differences in tactics and gameplay. Hit-and-run attacks have the chance to do some kind of damage to a larger ship, but that individual large ship is less likely to be destroyed by ships that cost far less in skillpoints and ISK to fly.

Racial weapons can have a different kind of balance too. Minmatar weapons have a low DPS, keep it there but give them a higher chance of subsystem damage. That way, Minnies are for gamblers - maybe your first shot knocks out their armour rep, or warp stabs, or maybe it doesn't and you're in trouble.

End of the day, there are advantages to a mixed fleet that just won't be there if damage capacity (DPS vs. tanking) is the only balance point.

Once you've uncoupled the various ship classes from each other you can increase armour as much as you need to make equal size slugfests longer. Of course, you'll still have the problem of focused fire making combat short - but then again, a change to ECM bursts such that they drop all locks on you (rather than disrupting all locks from the affected enemy ship) might do the trick there too.

Finally, something really should be done about the serious lack of places where combat can occur. Gates, stations and sometimes belts and that's it. Once the other aspects of combat are rejiggered - what about making interceptor actually live up to their name? Nerf their damage ability so that they're not competing with assault frigs, and give them the role ability to follow other ships in warp, and force them out of warp on a chance basis (competing modules for instance). So that way you've got the inty taking off after prey, forcing it down, but basically unable to do much damage to it without other gang members warping in to help. That lag time is where the other ship gets it's chance to escape (jamming, drones, or whatever).

Sorry if this is all a little jumbled, but that one para about making combat longer made me a sad panda and I wanted to get this stuff out.

Blind Man
Caldari
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
Posted - 2006.06.05 20:45:00 - [19]
 

Edited by: Blind Man on 05/06/2006 20:46:11
Originally by: SengH
reducing optimal range? lol... projectiles better get a huge tracking boost.... The other side effect is that it would bring alot more ships into NOS range....


my thoughts exactly
Originally by: j0sephine
"Lately we've been working on Tier 3 battleships. We've had some crazy bonuses on them and some little less crazy."

ahahahaa embrace your target painting bonus, Minmatar xD

* runs like heck. double so in case people recall who's responsible for optimal nerf idea >>;


LaughingTwisted EvilSad

Callie Nefarious
NibbleTek
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2006.06.05 20:46:00 - [20]
 

Another rather large project we are looking into is the lowering the optimal range of weapons to bring the fight closer. I read a rather interesting suggestion on the forums about "nerfing" range so that small weapons have the range they have today, medium weapons have 1.5x the range of small weapons and large weapons 2x the range of small weapons. This is something we're willing to look into and there are some good reason for doing this but its not an easy task.


/me likes the sound of this very much

Deva Blackfire
Viziam
Posted - 2006.06.05 20:48:00 - [21]
 

Yay for removing mid-range combat :) Now Amarr - masters of mid-range wont be as useful as blaster/AC users :)

Admiral IceBlock
Caldari
Northern Intelligence
Posted - 2006.06.05 20:54:00 - [22]
 

Edited by: Admiral IceBlock on 05/06/2006 20:58:18
Quote:
Another rather large project we are looking into is the lowering the optimal range of weapons to bring the fight closer. I read a rather interesting suggestion on the forums about "nerfing" range so that small weapons have the range they have today, medium weapons have 1.5x the range of small weapons and large weapons 2x the range of small weapons. This is something we're willing to look into and there are some good reason for doing this but its not an easy task.

Best... EVER!! Very Happy

EDIT:
BUT, if such change is to come a lot of balancing has to be done. Speed has to be lowered, Tracking has to be altered, game mechanisms in general has to be chaned. A giant task really Tuxford, you will need all the help you can get. Admiral IceBlock reporting for duty :P

Xrak
Pat Sharp's Potato Rodeo
Wildly Inappropriate.
Posted - 2006.06.05 20:55:00 - [23]
 

Would the simpliest way to prolong combat simply be to slow everything down a bit?

Slower ROF, slower cap recharge, slower repairing?

Ofc the danger would be not to slow it down so much that it becomes boring.

Sarmaul
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2006.06.05 20:58:00 - [24]
 

Edited by: Sarmaul on 05/06/2006 21:01:52
why do you want to decrease the range of combat? ships bounce off each other enough as it is :/. to be honest I would rather increase the optimal and falloff of all modules with an optimal and falloff

Jim McGregor
Posted - 2006.06.05 21:04:00 - [25]
 

Edited by: Jim McGregor on 05/06/2006 21:19:21

Its a bit annoying that people naming threads Tux in the title are destroying for the rest of us. I want a good communication with the guy that balances ships. Its not good for the game if you feel you need to avoid getting involved in threads. I blame some people in Ships & Modules for this...

You have alot of ideas for changing the game, but are these changes really needed? What is the advantage of having fighting ships close to eachother? And what is the reasons for prolonging combat? Ive heard you guys mention this before, but I dont see anyone complaining about the fights being too short. Most of the times you want to kill the other guy as quickly as possible to avoid his friends warping in. If you make fights take longer, it will only require more blobbing to kill the target. Im just not sure this would be better for the game. Right now, killing someone as quick as possible and make alot of damage is what makes it fun.

Also im not sure about high damage, close range rockets. I fear they will become too powerful and there will no longer be any reason at all to fly anything other than a missile ship. The only advantage turrets have over launchers right now is that they hit for more damage up close (autocannons & blasters) and that they hit instantly. If you remove that advantage, the only thing turrets will be good at is sniping. For everything else, missiles will be the best choice. Missiles and turrets should have different strengths and weaknesses, but it feels like you are giving missiles the strength of current close-range turrets... Crying or Very sad

Jesho
Minmatar
Swedish Aerospace Inc
The Kadeshi
Posted - 2006.06.05 21:05:00 - [26]
 

"We still want to prolong combat."

You do realize that if you make battles last too long, people won't have time to play?

Joerd Toastius
Octavian Vanguard
Posted - 2006.06.05 21:09:00 - [27]
 

Reducing ranges makes maneuvering more significant, particularly in that it's easier to move into or out of yours or another player's optimal.

As to the realism question, well, it's wholly secondary to gameplay IMO. Yes, we should all be discussing engagement ranges in terms of AU rather than km. However, realism tends to be inversely proportional to fun. Right out at one end you have Banks/Culture warfare, where you're engaging at light-years distances, entirely controlled by computers and over before you can blink. Further down the scale you have say Hamilton/Confederation (Night's Dawn) engagements, which are "mid-range" (hundreds of kilometres) but again amounts to just deciding how many wasps to launch. Right down near the other end you have Freespace 2, where huge capital ships engage at ranges of around a kilometer. Horribly unrealistic, but huge fun, even if you're just flying a fighter and avoiding beam fire. Moral of the story is that the more "realism" you add, the more sterile you make combat, and sterile combat is boring combat.

Kurren
The Legion.
Requiem-Aeternam
Posted - 2006.06.05 21:10:00 - [28]
 

Originally by: Tuxford
I mentioned that we're planning to do assault missiles the other day. What are assault missiles some might ask? Well they are close range, high damage missiles. People quickly expressed their concerns that the very idea is overpowered and pointed out that Cerberus would pwn all heavy assault ships. The problem people see is that Cerberus gets two range bonuses and two damage bonuses. As it is now the second range bonus, missile flight time isn't all that useful, if I remember correctly it boosts the range from 120km to something like 180km. On a short range missile this bonus would be pretty sweet. Two range bonuses would in effect more than double the range of any short range missile and make it more of a mid range or even long range missile with the damage output of a short range missile.
The Cerberus is already better than any other. As well is the Caldari AF missile boat. My small rails at a distance can't put out enough to hurt them, but their missiles can kick my crapper anywhere within 40km. Why must you hand out missiles that do more damage? Unless you're planning on lowering every other HAC/AF's siggy radius, they will PWN absolutely.

Originally by: Tuxford
We still want to prolong combat. There are number of ways to do that like boosting resistance, lowering damage of weapons or simply by adding hitpoints. Boosting resistance and lowering damage basically does the same thing. It not only increases the time people would live but it also increase what they can tank. The difference is that if we lower damage too much we might end up with a situation where 1 vs. 1 battleship fight is simply unwinnable for either side if they have a decent tank, which isn't really what what we want. Boosting hitpoints is a bit better method to achieve this. There are however complications. This would affect ships with small capacitor more than the ones with large capacitor so we might actually increase capacitor size and the recharge time. So they would still be able to achieve the same cap/sec but would have more cap to begin with. Also, Artillery damage output needs to be looked at if the alpha strike has less impact in a fight.
I understand you wanting to do this, but from what I've read in my time on the forums, the only ones that want combat to last longer are the ones that are losing. There is no real point in adding HP, imho, because a fight is a fight. The winner will be decided quickly no matter what, and the loser will try to warp out no matter what.

Originally by: Tuxford
Another rather large project we are looking into is the lowering the optimal range of weapons to bring the fight closer. I read a rather interesting suggestion on the forums about "nerfing" range so that small weapons have the range they have today, medium weapons have 1.5x the range of small weapons and large weapons 2x the range of small weapons. This is something we're willing to look into and there are some good reason for doing this but its not an easy task.
Again, another pointless change. The ammo people use can do this. I equip a mid-range ammo because I WANT to be far away. All you'll really be doing is funneling everybody into the "2 Stabs [at least] in the low slots" ship set-up. I'm not sure what reducing turret range will help accomplish, but I can't see the accomplishments as being useful.

As for the Gallente Tier 3 BattleShip... it looks like crap. I hope it has stats to make up for it's smell.

I'll try to be less pezemistic in the future... when that is will be hard to determine if we're able to determine it at all.

Monica Foulkes
Veto Corp
Posted - 2006.06.05 21:11:00 - [29]
 

I guess assault missiles is a better name than heavy rockets...

Vader Crane
Minmatar
Rage and Terror
Against ALL Authorities
Posted - 2006.06.05 21:17:00 - [30]
 

Edited by: Chode Rizoum on 05/06/2006 21:20:21
Artillery damage output needs to be looked at if the alpha strike has less impact in a fight.


wtf !... then we have no use at all lol.. low dps.. low alpha strike.. i geuss we might aswell train gallante


Pages: [1] 2 3 4

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only